Harris v. Safir, 284 A.D.2d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Harris v. Safir, 284 A.D.2d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Baird v. Kelly (nysupctnewyork, 2004-03-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Baird v. Kelly
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2004 · confidence medium
It can even rely solely "upon the experts credited by the Medical Board and ... reject the opinion of petitioner's experts" ( Matter of Harris [Safir] , 284 AD2d 220, 221 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Yon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defendant’s request to testify before the grand jury therefore was untimely pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) because it was not served prior to the filing of the indictment, “a requirement that is strictly enforced” (People v Madsen, 254 AD2d 152, 153 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1035 ; see People v Clay, 248 AD2d 180 , lv denied 92 NY2d 849 , 852; People v Crisp, 246 AD2d 84, 86 , lv dismissed 93 NY2d 898 ; see also People v Washington, 284 AD2d 220 , lv denied 96 NY2d 925 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David W. Harris
v.
Howard Safir, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 21, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 220
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application, brought pursuant[*221] to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ determination, dated March 10,1999, denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Board of Trustees, as a consequence of a tie vote upon the issue of whether petitioner’s disability was caused by a service-related accident, denied petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits. Since there was some credible evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner’s disability was not caused by a service-related accident, the Board’s determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits may not be disturbed (see, Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees, 90 NY2d 139, 147; Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). In voting on the causation issue, the Board of Trustees was entitled to rely upon the experts credited by the Medical Board and to reject the opinion of petitioner’s experts (see, Matter of Meyer, supra). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the very lengthy interval between the shooting and the onset of his disability was properly considered by the Medical Board in recommending that a causal connection between the two events had not been established (see, Matter of Schnyderite v Brown, 227 AD2d 286, lv denied 88 NY2d 812). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.